Angular gravitation paths

Tom,

As you mention, we are basically talking past each other. It’s my fault because my views are radical, and aren’t as specific as basic physics. You can write off my views as strictly philosophy. As such my ideas don’t tend to generate interest, but you at least lean toward my thought processes with pushing gravity and the static universe. My views go beyond those including focus on the relative nature of things.

I have read your book ‘Dark Matter’ and pretty well understand the Meta model. I wont call any parts flaws. I just believe my model is simpler and all encompassing. It is hard to change philosophies one has built up over time. The following are some differences between our systems. I don’t have double/multiple media, nor a media separate from gravity particles. I don’t have extreme velocities and gravitons diminishing with distance. I don’t have gravitons reflecting from surfaces, potentially creating backwash. I include a different logical build up of the solar system without relying on pieces breaking off the sun. Your system begins with a single particle, mine with infinite space consisting of gravity particles. I have gravitation energy gradually creating mass via M=E/Csquared. I provide unification of forces. I have a single source of both rotation and revolution, which also inhibits collapse. I address our equilibrium on earth relative to the motions going on around us. I explain quantum gravitation issues that merge it with Newtonian gravitation. I reject voids and any sufficient absence of opposite forces such as friction.

You say angular motions are simple referring to orbital mechanics - astrophysics. These arent especially simple, but they do fully cover the issues as we on earth relate to orbitals. They don’t address picturing of the universe including such that everything follows curved paths Who determines that a radial emission travels a straight line, the source or the recipient? They cant both draw its path as straight, nor can an outside observer, if they are moving relative to each other. There is no privileged frame of reference in which to define or measure the path. That is why ‘absolute’ space is unreal. Straight is even a problem for a single observer not unlike the absence of an actual straight line upon the curved surface of earth from all perspectives. As one example of a single participant, if a projectile is shot straight up by a resident of a spinning globe, is straight up straight up from the source or from the virtual non-revolving original point? Excluding outside forces, where will it land if it returns 2 minutes later? If it lands on the shooter then it acquired angular motion at launch relative to an outside observer drawing a flat picture of space. Even after the two minutes it wont exactly land on the shooter since the surface curved downward a bit - a third vector.

Since we cant absolutely express distance or direction as measures of space, I refer to the word space as you do the media. For me, space has the physical property of existing. It cannot be simply empty nor void. Thus my idea of space is specifically my gravity particles, which I call paeps, which travel in all directions. Since they push they can provide all forces without violating laws of physics. You asked what my space is, it is paeps, gravitation equaling the medium. The following are the properties of my paeps.

1. Paep is an elementary, perhaps the elementary particle.
2. A paep travels at the speed of light. It does not exist as such at rest and at lesser speeds .
3. Paeps travel in equal quantity in all directions in the void of space and in that situation they generally do not interact with each other.
4. A paep is a particle with no spin.
5. Paeps penetrate mass and in doing so are somewhat diminished and potentially somewhat absorbed.
6. In an unbalanced region, paeps can affect each other such that paths of one may be bent by another, and ultimately spin may result from the turbulence.
7. A paep acquiring any degree of spin or cyclical wave path qualities, or losing velocity begins the preliminary step of conversion into a mass particle.
8. There is a spectrum of particle existence with a paep at one end and the gradually more spinning, more dense, more externally static particles at the other end. The characteristics at this other end define mass particles. The spectrum extends to the most dense mass. Ultimately spin defines the existence of mass and the amount of spin defines the specific mass of particles.
9. A paep applies pressure to a spinning particle specifically because the paep does not spin. Because of its spin, mass is pressured and, in return, the spin causes the paep paths to become bent. 10. Mass exists as the antithesis of its background of non spinning paeps. By exhibiting pushing pressure paeps exhibit a property like mass, but they should not be confused with mass
11. The field of paeps is the medium or ether. Depending on perspective, slightly modified paeps may be included in defining the medium.

Given the idea of paeps, these are postulates about gravitation.

1. Angular gravitation is an energy that can convert to matter upon impact, thus reversing our mass to energy focus when relating to E-MC 2.
2. It is the degree of spin that distinguishes gravitation particles from mass particles, thus forming a spectrum of 'states of existence''.
3. The localized push of paeps is not diminished and provides the nuclear force.


paul schroeder